linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] Re: [mm/hugetlb] c77c0a8ac4: will-it-scale.per_process

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200117065628.GC86012@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jan 2020 14:56:28 +0800
From:   Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [mm/hugetlb] c77c0a8ac4: will-it-scale.per_process_ops
 15.9% improvement

Hi Waiman and Michal,

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 09:57:14AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 1/14/20 4:12 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 14-01-20 16:56:37, kernel test robot wrote:
> >> Greeting,
> >>
> >> FYI, we noticed a 15.9% improvement of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> >>
> >>
> >> commit: c77c0a8ac4c522638a8242fcb9de9496e3cdbb2d ("mm/hugetlb: defer freeing of huge pages if in non-task context")
> >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > This is more than surprising because the patch has only changed the
> > behavior for hugetlb pages freed from the (soft)interrupt context and
> > that should be a very rare event. Does the test really generate a lot of
> > those?
> >
> Yes, I have the same question. I was not expecting to see any
> performance impact.

We have the same question and did some further check.

This is the "pagefault3" test case of will-it-scale, and is  
mmap/get_page/munmap test. The source code is: 
https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale/blob/master/tests/page_fault3.c 

And its running on LKP does NOT involve any hugetlb actions, as
could be checking HugePages_* in /proc/meminfo.

We also did another check, reverted c77c0a8ac4c5 and simply added
some printk inside free_huge_page(), which can also bring 15%
improvement.

So one possible reason could be the commit changes the cache
alignment of other kernel codes in final bzImage, which happens
to hugely affect this test case.

Thanks,
Feng

> 
> Cheers,
> Longman
> _______________________________________________
> LKP mailing list -- lkp@...ts.01.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to lkp-leave@...ts.01.org